Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Malik Traders – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained by this Court in view of the fact that G.S.T. Tribunal is not functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.
3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 4.10.2019 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sector 2 Meerut by which the proceedings of Section 74 of UP GST Act was initiated demanding Rs. 12,32,148/- as wrong availment of input tax credit which was confirmed by the impugned order dated 6.3.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal) First, Commercial Tax, Meerut.
4. Brief facts of the case as stated, are that the petitioner being a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 09ACLPU9404D1ZA is engaged in the purchase and sale of waste materials, plastic scrap, paper scrap and metal scrap. The petitioner from April 2018 to September 2019 has disclosed the turnover of Rs. 34,22,634/- on which input tax credit of Rs.
Dealers claiming input tax credit must establish genuine transactions and physical movement of goods with adequate proof; failure to do so may result in disallowance and recovery proceedings under th....
The burden of proof lies with the dealer to establish the genuineness of transactions and actual movement of goods for Input Tax Credit claims under GST.
Input tax credit claims require proof of actual tax payment by the supplier; failure to demonstrate this results in denial of credit.
The burden of proof lies on the recipient to establish the legitimacy of Input Tax Credit claims, necessitating evidence of actual goods received, which failed in this case.
A registered person is not entitled to input tax credit if the claimed supplies are from non-existent firms, regardless of the validity of the supplier's GST registration at the time of transaction.
The court held that input tax credit cannot be denied based on the seller's retrospective registration cancellation when the transaction occurred while the seller was registered.
Purchasing dealers claiming ITC must prove genuine transactions and actual physical movement beyond invoices or payment details under Section 70 of KVAT Act, 2003.
Tax authorities must provide substantial evidence of fraud or suppression of facts before imposing penalties under Sections 74 and 50, especially when input tax credit has already been reversed volun....
Under Section 42 of the CGST Act, tax recovery from purchasers requires prior action against suppliers unless a collusion is established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
